A Trial Without Witnesses

I think the OP knows that the evidence is nothing so the OP is more frustrated by the actions of the House than anything else. And why should the Senate aid in the ineptitude of the House?

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody

No, the math I get. I know how many it takes to remove. That will never happen. Not as things are.

My thread is about witnesses and why no one wants to hear firsthand ones.

Oh I would love to hear from some
The senate does not have to
Civics

a reply to: burntheships

I still think it's illegal for the house to withhold the Atkinson transcript. Right now questions are being asked about the evidence. No questions can be asked about Atkinson's testimony because nobody has it but Adam shiff!

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: DBCowboy

I would think you would want him to. But ok. If you don't care, you don't care.

Why would I care?

This is purely political.

It is an attack from democrats to oust a sitting president.

That's all this is.

So, the withholding of aid for an investigation into a political rival is just bupkus? A farce? Completely false?

The many people to have attested to such are just bipartisan and want the President out?

That's what you believe?

a reply to: Admitted

The facts do not support that scenario son.

a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the truth.

I would love to hear from some too.

The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.

originally posted by: Admitted
The blame is going to the House of Representatives (the people who represent U.S. citizens) for not subpoening these witnesses. Which could take months to years.

I think that's fair. The House should have done that. But here we are.

The courts are too slow and so, I get why this was done.

There is one problem I see here and it comes from the top.

I know most here love him, but love him or hate him, Trump is on the top. And he is sowing this division. America is a place of diverse opinions. Trump promotes one vision that does not align with the majority. We are in turmoil and IT IS his fault. He is the boss.

We are currently debating on whether to have witnesses at his impeachment trial.

Why on earth would we not have witnesses?

Why?

Because they have negative things to say about the President?

Do we have free speech? Rule of law? I guess not....not anymore.

Look up how long the previous investigations in the house lasted.

There has never been new witnesses called in the senate - just existing witnesses that clarified some of their testimony.

The Democrats are the ones that are trying to change standard procedure. If they get their way we are going to have impeachments nearly every presidency.

If you think that is a good idea - you are not very bright.

I try to take care of my threads, I'm sorry I can't respond to all posts...

Too many...

a reply to: burntheships

You do have a point, since it was revealed earlier today that at least three Democrat senators, and maybe four, are going to vote to acquit President Trump.

You understand that there were 18 witnesses in the house, right?
17 of them testified in open hearings. This testimony was entered into evidence on the floor of the senate by the managers as well as the defense. So, we actually had a Senate trial with NUMEROUS WITNESSES.
Are you aware that the House Dems prevented the House GOP from calling ANY fact witnesses?

Are you aware that, in past cases, judicial rulings have actually been expedited in cases that it was necessary, such as Clinton's claims of executive privilege during his impeachment?

Are you aware that Schiff has withheld the 18th witness's testimony? Atkinson, the intelligence community IG, testified in the house basement. Schiff won't declassify his testimony. Because of this, the House GOP/Senate defense team is unable to discuss anything from his testimony. Worth noting, unlike Trump's claims of immunity, there is no recourse for the defense.

I was told the house's case is "overwhelming" and "irrefutable". If this is the case, why is Bolton's testimony needed? If his testimony is so integral to proving the case against the president, how did they already pass impeachment articles? Am I to now believe that the house passed impeachment articles with insufficient evidence?

Trump is responsible for this division? I'm sorry but that's just absurd. They have been publicly talking about impeaching Trump since the day he was elected. Do some research into how many times, and for what reasons, impeachment was introduced in the house prior to this latest attempt.

President Trump has been under sustained attack since BEFORE HE WAS ELECTED. It's been proven, with no room for debate, that the Obama administration unlawfully spied on his presidential campaign, relying on what they knew was an unverified oppo research dossier funded by the DNC and Hillary campaign. The dossier was compiled by a foreign ex spy who, in part, got his info from RUSSIAN agents. They turned that illegal surveillance into 2 years of false media stories, illegal strategic leaks and a $30million special counsel investigation into "Russian collusion" that, after 2 years, determined... NO RUSSIAN COLLUSION.

Now we have the house impeaching the president for asking for a corruption investigation, with basis, and for attempting to exercise his constitutional rights. As I've pointed out, the process in the house was unfair, at best. And you're gonna tell me this is all Trump's fault? With all due respect, it's time for you to start paying attention.

originally posted by: carewemust
a reply to: burntheships

I still think it's illegal for the house to withhold the Atkinson transcript. Right now questions are being asked about the evidence. No questions can be asked about Atkinson's testimony because nobody has it but Adam shiff!

Sure, Schiff is as crooked as they come, he wont leave
one dirty trick in his bag..

But proceed anyways.

originally posted by: Admitted

originally posted by: DBCowboy

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: DBCowboy

I would think you would want him to. But ok. If you don't care, you don't care.

Why would I care?

This is purely political.

It is an attack from democrats to oust a sitting president.

That's all this is.

So, the withholding of aid for an investigation into a political rival is just bupkus? A farce? Completely false?

The many people to have attested to such are just bipartisan and want the President out?

That's what you believe?

Bluntly
Yes
This is a policy difference and the president sets foreign policy
Not the nsc
Not the fbi
Just potus

a reply to: jadedANDcynical

Surely if all the "evidence" is innuendo, hearsay and subjective interpretation. Witnesses that were there or have evidence can clear up this case and exonerate Trump.

If all the witnesses say, "this never happened." It should be a pretty quick proceeding.

What does Trump have to hide that they don't want witnesses?

a reply to: Admitted

Please tell me you're not this dense?

You may want to look into OCR transcription errors if you are unable to determine why r's show as n's in transcripts.

originally posted by: Admitted
I try to take care of my threads, I'm sorry I can't respond to all posts...

Too many...

I start them late at night. Things are more manageable then.

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: pavil

They were. They should have brought these witnesses that they could. That the White House didn't block. They should have subpoeaned.

They put it off to the Senate and that was stupid.

But, the senate, should do what they didn't. We need first-hand accounts and they can provide that. That the house didn't do it right, doesn't mean they shouldn't.

I want the whole truth. I want firsthand witnesses. Bring them.

You act as if them putting off the witnesses was a mistake.

It was not - it was intentional. They only cared about finishing the impeachment before the election - because it is nothing more than a political ploy to attempt to INTERFERE IN THE 2020 election.

a reply to: elDooberino

Yah but why no witnesses? I want witnesses!!! *whines like a toddler*

originally posted by: Admitted
a reply to: shooterbrody

That's the truth.

I would love to hear from some too.

The math does suck here. But mostly the partisanship.

Oh but the PURELY PARTISAN IMPEACHMENT does not?
Pffft
Not 1 gop house vote was cast for impeachment
That is the definition of partisanship.

a reply to: proximo

I think repeating impeachments are a terrible idea. The precedents being set here are atrocious.

Even more so if we don't see all the evidence. The House failed. I don't want the Senate to fail.

Hear witnesses. It's pretty simple.

Fox News just interrupted the hearing to replay John Bolton saying that Donald Trump and president zelinski had a good phone call.

Chris Wallace responded by saying, all the more reason why Bolton must testify.